SynthesisSports medicine - open2026
Acute and Chronic Effects of Drop-Set Training: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Sports medicine - open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Methods and Systems of Resistance Training: A Narrative Review Based on Contemporary Recommendations.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDrop-set training (DROP) is a time-efficient resistance training method for hypertrophy and strength. Its long-term adaptations remain debated, particularly in relation to its acute physiological responses such as metabolic stress and fatigue. This meta-analysis examines both acute and chronic effects of DROP to provide a comprehensive evaluation of its efficacy.
methodsA systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and SPORTDiscus up to January 20, 2026, following PRISMA guidelines. Studies comparing DROP and traditional resistance training (TRAD) on hypertrophy, strength, metabolic stress, fatigue, and perceived exertion were included. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed using the PEDro scale. Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.
resultsThe meta-analysis, based on 12 studies (n = 274 participants), revealed significant increases in ratings of perceived exertion (SMD = 1.62, 95% CI [0.33 to 2.91]) and lactate levels (SMD = 0.67, 95% CI [0.20 to 1.14]) for DROP. A trend in favor of DROP was observed for heart rate, although this did not reach statistical significance (SMD = 0.45, 95% CI [- 0.12 to 1.02]). No significant differences were observed between DROP and TRAD for chronic hypertrophy (SMD = 0.04, 95% CI [- 0.29 to 0.36]), strength (SMD = - 0.04, 95% CI [- 0.34 to 0.26]), or muscle endurance adaptations (SMD = 0.53, 95% CI [- 0.20 to 1.26]).
conclusionDROP offers a time-efficient alternative to TRAD, yielding comparable long-term gains in muscle hypertrophy and strength. Based on current evidence, DROP acutely induces significantly higher perceived exertion and lactate responses, whereas heart rate shows no consistent differences between methods. Practitioners should consider these elevated perceptual demands and potential recovery needs when integrating DROP into long-term training periodization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.